/lit/ - Literature

>>9781149
>anaximander/fragment
this has reminded me of something as well though that connects to something else i learned about via /lit/, which was liberation theology.

i tend to brood on is the Law, aka, Because Reasons. certain forms of axial-age psychology, or deleuze, others, articulate something i have always suspected about this: that it's *chaos* and not the Law which comes first.
>unless we are talking about some kind of Higher Law so remote it can't be understood. ok

Because Reasons is a thing i detest, the arbitrariness of force and reciprocity. i do not like the idea that all history belongs to the guy who cares the least and has the biggest firecrackers. and this not from some kind of ressentiment but because i regard the detonation of firecrackers as being frequently desperate, a kind of identity crisis even. true monsters and tyrants *know* that they are monsters and tyrants, which is actually what in a certain sense elevates them beyond being so. what passes for The Law is all-too-frequently in the end only so much aggregate common sense.
>don't ramble tho

so i'm in a kind of double bind, but it's one you've helped me to understand. what i *do* want is something like a *collective consciousness* of things, but *not* one which is *by default* understood mainly in and through the idea of *punishment.* the greeks are ofc Awesome. who's *not* into Heroic Objectivity? who's *not* fucking exhausted with infinite relativism & decadence? ok. but it's not so easy to *just say* We Should Go Back. to my mind it has to be about *going forward* but in the *right way.* taking a step beyond post/modernism into something which is in one sense mystical and in another pragmatic. a kind of nonduality that doesn't amount to only a sort of flaky mysticism, but isn't completely ungrounded from the world either.

this really gets at the central nerve-clusters of what i'm trying to work out. it's a kind of consciousness of ethics, but it doesn't have a political form. like in the tao, the Law itself manifests only when something *higher* and *more natural* has already been *lost.*

so christ, for instance, overturns all laws. girard understands this. the question is, does this loose anarchy on the world? what would a post-anarchic sensibility look like? is it even conceivable? is it just virtue ethics? maybe. chardin thought he could reconcile faith with science. for girard religion is everything. peterson is up to something in this vein too.

these are the kinds of things i'm interested in. a sort of rational nondualism or a nondual rationalism. god only knows why. it's connected to capitalism & other stuff, these ideas of human meatbags being connected on this insane planet.

something like an intimation of a second axial age perhaps. but not on an urban model. much more on a planetary/cosmo-politan model.
>you seek to have the power of international shame girardfag is it not so
>yes yes that's right gives it to us
>kek fuck you then